Interesting. But wouldn’t an incoming president be able to challenge that legally? There wouldn’t be double jeopardy if the person hadn’t actually gone to trial.
challange a presidential pardon on what grounds?
http://www.democrats.com/the-presidents-un-pardon-power-is-unlimited-too
What did Marshall mean by “it may be controverted by the prosecutor, and must be expounded by the court”?
First, that a prosecutor can challenge the pardon in court. So if Bush illegally pardons himself for Federal crimes, a federal “prosecutor” - Obama’s Attorney General or his subordinate - can therefore challenge the illegal pardons in court on substantive Constitutional grounds, namely that the President’s pardon power does not include the power to self-pardon.
Second, that a court must consider the prosecutor’s challenge. The Supreme Court could not dismiss the case as a mere political dispute, but would have to determine whether or not the Founders granted the President the power to self-pardon.
As a former professor of Constitutional law, President Obama certainly understands that self-pardons are not only unconstitutional, but also a guarantee of future presidential lawlessness and dictatorship. If Bush issues one, it would be President Obama’s obligation to challenge it in court so it does not become a precedent for dictatorial lawlessness by himself or any future president.
http://www.democrats.com/files/brian-kalt-pardon-me.pdf